John Stuart Mills and Simone De Beauvoir’s contribution to philosophy is immense due to their elaborate writing on ‘Freedom’. According to Mill, freedom is essential for human flourishing and protection by governments against harm or coercion. Meanwhile, de Beauvoir highlighted how women experience oppression due to a lack of liberty within patriarchal societies. This essay will analyse two philosophers’ stances and determine which offers a more persuasive method to approach freedom.
The position of John Stuart Mill on freedom can be located in his book On Liberty. He asserts that individuals must have the liberty to pursue their interests provided they do not cause harm to anyone else. He thinks human flourishing requires freedom, and the government must safeguard individuals from harm and coercion (Mill, 2010). Mill’s viewpoint of the role of government intervention in personal freedom is limited solely to preventing harm towards others. He contends that it is essential for people to have a free expression of ideas and pursuit of interests as well as free engagement in voluntary organisations with no interference from authorities. Alongside writing about liberty, Mill also tackled the subject of female subordination in The Subjection of Women. He argued that patriarchal societies oppressed and denied freedoms to women. He believes gender equality is essential for a just society where both genders enjoy equal rights.
To articulate her stance on freedom, Simone de Beauvoir argues that women are oppressed and denied their rights in patriarchal societies, as expressed in The Second Sex. Women’s subordination is justified by the social construct of gender that she believes in. De Beauvoir posits that women are not naturally less capable than men. It is society’s customs and upbringing practices which make them appear so. In her argument, De Beauvoir emphasises how women lack freedom due to limited education and job prospects (De Beauvoir, 2010). Additionally, she notes how men view them merely as objects to be controlled physically. In her opinion achieving true freedom requires women’s awareness of their oppression and working hard towards defeating it.
Different as their methods may be, Mill’s & De Beauvoir’s unwavering devotion towards personal liberties remains unchanged. While Mill concentrates on protecting individual rights through governmental intervention, de Beauvoir focuses on exposing how patriarchal societies limit female autonomy. Still, there are a few essential differences between where they stand. Mill’s view that only harm and coercion justify government involvement in personal liberty can limit it in some ways (Mill, 2010). Some groups face limitations in exercising their freedom due to systemic oppression or structural inequalities, which the proposed solution needs to tackle sufficiently. In contrast, de Beauvoir’s focus on denying women freedom in patriarchal societies allows for a more nuanced understanding of how social structures and cultural norms can limit individual freedom.
De Beauvoir’s perspective on freedom stresses the value and the necessity of recognising intersectionality or how different kinds of oppression may interconnect and amplify. Women from communities such as those in the LGBTQ+ group and persons with coloured skin could experience supplementary repression types, limiting their independence (De Beauvoir, 2010). The emphasis on individual liberty in Mill’s approach means that the potential limitations to freedom imposed by structural inequality might be overlooked. When considering the most effective method for achieving freedom, it is essential to consider multiple factors. Considering the complex ways freedom can be limited within a society should be a significant consideration when evaluating different approaches. The denial of freedom can be understood through De Beauvoir’s method, which concentrates on intersectionality and the limits imposed by social structures.
An essential aspect of evaluating is how both approaches tackle systemic oppression and structural inequality issues. However, Mill stresses that harm and coercion are the valid exclusive bases for state intervention in personal liberty. Tackling systemic oppression concerns entails further structural alterations (Mill, 2010). A possible solution for dealing with such matters would be following de Beauvoir’s methodology, which emphasises confronting Patriarchal beliefs in addition to what has been said before. It is worth mentioning that De Beauvoir’s theory can become even more relevant nowadays since we see a rise in discussions about Intersectionalism & Systemic Oppression. A helpful approach to meaningfully addressing these issues could involve challenging patriarchal norms and social structures restricting individual freedom.
While offering vital views on Freedom, the perspective of De Beauvoir is the most persuasive. She has an exceptional grasp of how societal limitations affect freedom. Her emphasis on intersectionality alongside social structures and her challenge against patriarchal norms results in a comprehensive understanding (De Beauvoir, 2010). Furthermore, her approach may be more relevant and valuable for addressing the complex and interconnected forms of oppression that individuals face today. John Stuart Mill and Simone de Beauvoir have contributed significantly to our understanding of freedom.Nevertheless, De Beauvoir’s viewpoint is more convincing. To summarise, Simone presents a broader and more refined version of the restrictions on freedom in society through her attention to intersectionality and social structures while simultaneously challenging patriarchal norms in dealing with the complex and interconnected forms of oppression individuals face. Her approach can prove to be more relevant and helpful.
References
De Beauvoir, S. (2010). The second sex. Knopf.
Mill, J. S. (2010). The essential writings of John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, the Subjection of Women and Utilitarianism. Modern Library.
write